From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal: new default bindings for winner and windmove Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 13:59:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7133BE83-064B-43A4-A193-61376605222C@dancol.org> <055E6E92-6971-409E-A106-7E0C64FEF856@dancol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17004"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Kangas , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 23 15:59:51 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sLNl1-0004EK-5Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 15:59:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sLNkO-00035B-Bw; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 09:59:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sLNkN-00034q-5p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 09:59:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sLNkK-0002SZ-UR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 09:59:10 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 19866 invoked by uid 3782); 23 Jun 2024 15:59:06 +0200 Original-Received: from muc.de (p4fe15813.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.88.19]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 15:59:05 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 22548 invoked by uid 1000); 23 Jun 2024 13:59:05 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <055E6E92-6971-409E-A106-7E0C64FEF856@dancol.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.3; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:320529 Archived-At: Hello, Daniel. On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 08:57:36 -0400, Daniel Colascione wrote: > On June 23, 2024 8:05:22 AM EDT, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 07:14:25 -0400, Daniel Colascione wrote: > >> On June 23, 2024 6:05:13 AM EDT, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> >On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 15:39:09 -0500, Stefan Kangas wrote: > >> >> Stefan Monnier writes: > >> >> > A few years ago, Daniel suggested: > >> >> >> Likewise, for windmove, we can bind C-x 4 {left, right, up, down} and DWIM > >> >> >> for people automatically, enabled by default. > >> >> > AFAICT we still don't actually provide any keybindings for the windmove > >> >> > commands by default. Did I miss a controversy about that, or did it > >> >> > just fall through the cracks? > >> >> FWIW, I don't remember any controversy either, so my guess is that it > >> >> just fell through the cracks. > >> >I would be against using C-x 4 or C-x 5 for > >> >windmove (or anything else) by default. Key sequences with arrow keys > >> >are too few, and too precious, to use for anything not critically > >> >important. > >> >windmove is not critically important. Either it isn't used at all by a > >> >user (likely most users), or it is used all the time (by a small number > >> >of users). In the latter case, the user will already have bound the > >> >commands to key sequences, since they are not useful called from M-x. > >> >It wasn't so long ago that we were removing default key bindings so as > >> >to free them up for other uses. I don't think there's any reason to > >> >reverse that policy for windmove. It just isn't important enough. > >> >There will be users who've bound these key bindings for their own uses. > >> >Let's not mess these users around. > >> The arrow keys don't have any meaning after C-x 4 today, and the > >> meaning I've been wanting to give them is useful and logical. > >It's useful to you, personally. It wouldn't be useful to me. > >> I've been using the arrow key setup for years locally and it works very > >> well. It really does make window management much less annoying, and > >> it's not like we're going to use the arrow keys for anything else under > >> C-x 4. > >You've been using C-x 4 for your purposes, and other users > >will be using them for their purposes, likely to be different from yours. > So? Nobody is preventing those users doing what they want with their > key bindings. You're making a general purpose argument against having > default key bindings at all. Why don't we just ship Emacs with an empty > global keymap so we're not imposing on anyone? That isn't a nuanced reasoned argument any more than it was the first time you made it (which I snipped). It's barely worth replying to. What I'm saying is that IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE binding those particular keys to these commands is not a good idea. [ .... ] > >> But that aside, even if windmove is sparsely used today, might that be > >> because it's inconvenient to use without bindings? > >It might, but it's unlikely. Even C-x 4 would be inconvenient for > >me. I have other-window bound to and rarely have more than three > >or four windows in a frame. I'd hit two or three times rather > >going through the rigmarole of C-x 4 . > So? How does providing default windmove bindings make your life worse? It clutters up the keymap with rarely[*] used commands, leaving fewer bindings available to the user. [*] That's "rarely" as in "very few users" even though each of these no doubt uses the commands a lot. > >As I said, C-x 4 are convenient to you for windmove > >commands. They'll be convenient to other users for other commands in > >just the same way. You're proposing imposing your setup on everybody. > >I'm against this. > They're not convenient for anyone if left unbound. This is convenient for anybody who, like you, has already bound these keys to commands, and to users who are looking for key sequences for their new commands. There are lots of things in Emacs which seemed like good ideas at the time, but never really took off and became popular. windmove seems to be one of these. I have some similarly useful commands in my .emacs without which I could hardly use Emacs, but which I don't try to impose on other users. We shouldn't be filling up unused key bindings with such commands. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).